Obama Going Negative? Mailer Hits Clinton On Trade

Sen. Barack Obama's camp is sending out mailers in Pennsylvania directly taking on Sen. Hillary Clinton for her position on trade.

The piece, which was obtained by The Huffington Post, tiptoes the line between position contrast and general attack, as the Obama campaign cites several news items and quotes that are subject to different interpretations.

For example, the mailer cites a Newsday article from September 2006 concerning Clinton's perceived support for NAFTA. Aspects of that article, however, were retracted because it included the since-discredited line that the Senator said the trade agreement was a "boon." The Obama mailer didn't include the "boon" quote, but even Newsday offered that the use of their piece in a political context could be misleading.

In addition, the mailer criticizes Clinton for supporting permanent normal trade relations with China, citing a 2000 quote she made to CNN: "But on balance, I've looked at this, I've studied it. I think it is in the interests of America and American workers that we provide the option for China to go into the WTO."

Obama, however, has a similar quote from the Illinois Farm Bureau, albeit one with greater caveats and stipulations. "So I think it is important for us to negotiate our trade agreements recognizing that the global economy has shifted," he said in September 2004. "What that means then is that when the Chinese government devalues its currency by 40%, we've got to make sure that we bring China before the WTO. The same way that we get brought before the WTO if other countries think that a disadvantage, that they are being disadvantaged by our existing trade policies."

Beyond these quips, however, is a bigger question. Does this sully the Obama campaign's attempts to paint Clinton - who is running a slate of negative advertisements in Pennsylvania - as the only candidate to go negative?

As David Plouffe, Obama's campaign manager said of Clinton on a conference call on Thursday: "It is a relentlessly negative campaign here in Pennsylvania running negative ads around the state... her campaign can really be defined as an attack strategy day after day, trying to destroy Senator Obama."

Here's the complete mailer:

Comments

[thejoshuablog]

Good. It's about time.
More, please.
Now do one JUST on her lies (Snipers, Macedonia, china, Africa, NAFTA, Columbia, etc).
It's time to take this THING down.

[Richard729]

As we all know, a lot can and will happen before November 4. Until then, however, it's beginning to shape up as a John McCain landslide. Poll results today are showing John McCain starting to pull ahead of both Clinton and Obama.

Given the way this all started out with over 20 candidates running for president it's come down to an old veteran warhorse, McCain, who ran an unsuccessful campaign against G. W. Bush in 2000. He is now getting solid support from Reagan Democrats and the once up-for-grabs Independent voters.

This election is almost over and it's only April. John McCain and the Republicans have been handed one of the biggest gifts and one of the easiest victories in recent election memory. Neither Democrat candidate can win because their negatives are far outpacing any positive reasons to vote for either of them.

Republican propagandists and operatives may become depressed because they really have no better talking points and smear ads of their own to throw at the Democrats now that Obama and Clinton have piled up more negative ads against each other. Republicans won't even have to trot out the Swift Boaters if the carnivores, Clinton and Obama, keep devouring each other.

Who would have thought that unending wars in Afghanistan and Iraq combined with an economy in recession would be the path to victory for a Republican candidate whose main strategy for winning is a leitmotif of G. W. Bush’s failed policies?

[BlackMagicWoman]

Whoa, not so fast. There is a LOOOOONG time between April and November.

[Montanamotor]

Let him earn his scarce money. He is a paid Clinton ghostwriter. It's hard to be a freelancer these days. So, be nice. This man is only doing his job. I bet, in his dreams, he wants to be on the right side - Obama. He just jumped on the wron bandwagon too early - and now he's got stuck with it. Can we really blame him for that? No. Let's have pity for that hard-working, blue-collar-writer.

[VA2008]

Hey, it's time for "no more mister nice guy". Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire or the right wing will call you "weak"!

Go gettem' Barack!

[Montanamotor]

Yeah - she sowed the wind. Now she will reap the tempest.

[LittleSanityLeft]

Barack Obama does not want to alienate Clinton's base of woman by having Barack the big black man chastising the older white woman and "stepping on her throat" as Chris Mathews so elegantly put it. You may call it weak but it's smart. It'll be hard enough as it ease getting Clinton voters.

None issues will not decide this election, voters will. I think maybe, just maybe the voters have had enough of politics as usual and the ABC debate just highlighted that fact for all to see.

[JAM, Texas]

Is no one at all concerned that The trial date for the Clintons (plural) fraud trial is scheduled to be set on April 25! This is to be done in the LA Superior Court. Is there no one who will comment on this?
Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) is a named defendant in a civil case for fraud
and campaign finance violations, and could be charged with criminal perjury. The
trial date will be set on April 25th, 2008 , 3 days after the Pennsylvania
Primary.

The case is filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court.
You can view all of the details of this case on the court's web-site:

WWW.LASUPERIORCOURT.ORG

In the Civil Column, click on CASE SUMMARIES
Then enter this case number: BC304174

PETER F PAUL VS WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON

[sillyseason]

I'm very interested in the trial, JAM. I'm interested in seeing how much coverage it will get in the MSM.

[Peteyman]

on the MSM?

Not a chance in hell.

[new logic]

have U sent this to corp news media

[terragazelle]

I posted about this on another thread...I have heard nothing on the MSM about it. I really am interested in what this could mean...It needs out in the mainstream before Pa. primary.

[desmirl]

Telling the truth about Hillary is such ICKY work!

[FreedomLoverX]

Negative? No. SImple fact.

[ConnieB]

Hillary deserves everything he throws her way. I had not wanted him to go negative during the primaries but what else can you do when you run against someone like her?

[texanna]

OK, so let me get this straight -- when Sen. Clinton does something like this mailer the Obama supporters go completely batsh*&^^t crazy and when Sen. Obama does it they're perfectly OK with it? What a joke. I'm just amazed that anything that shows just how political Sen. Obama is has made its way onto this blog. It would be easier for me to seriously consider Sen. Obama if he were just portrayed as the real politician that he is instead of the saint the his supporters keep trying to tell me his is.

[sillyseason]

texanna wrote: "OK, so let me get this straight -- when Sen. Clinton does something like this mailer the Obama supporters go completely batsh*&^^t crazy and when Sen. Obama does it they're perfectly OK with it?"

texanna, there is a big difference between a flier that simply states the facts (Hillary's real position on trade), and a flier that makes inferences about Obama. Perhaps you wouldn't agree with this?

[GuyInNC]

I wouldn't agree that this flier states FACTS at all.

It does state a fact about her position on China. The problem with that is that Obama's position on China is the SAME. Does he point that out?

[meileen]

Amen.

Obama Going Negative? Give me a break. He's been negative; they both just have different styles of delivery. His is much more subtle, but it exists.

And from what I'm seeing posted on this site, it sure seems folks think Obama was FINALLY not treated like a rock star, but as a presidential candidate. It is about time, as we do want to know how he will react in the general. Not looking good for him.

[kid5rivers]

Hillary's ads are all lies! Now! Why am I not surprised at that?

[IRIE]

There is, however, a real divide on Hillary Clinton. It is between reality and myth and it is a divide that has existed ever since her husband ran for the presidency. But, as with her husband, the media has done a superb job of protecting its audience from reality.

This mythology will flourish until after the Democratic convention. If HRC wins the nomination, the game will dramatically change. The Republicans would be delighted to have Clinton as the candidate and don't want to spoil their chances by beating up on her now.

It is hard to get Democrats to focus on this problem, but consider this: The Justice Department's and other investigatory files on the Clinton years are currently fully under the control the Bush administration and will be until Inauguration Day.

Bluntly put, the Democrats are walking into a huge trap.


A similar fate awaits Hillary Clinton. Here are a few of the topics that can fairly be expected to be involved in what will become known as the Hillary Clinton scandals:

- http://www.prorev.com/2007/01/real-divide-on-hillary-clinton.htm

[Max7073]

Sorry Sam,

What exactly is negative about this? He's stating her position on trade issues. Just because he's pointing out an unpopular stance she holds on certain issues doesn't make him negative.

If he were attacking her because of her lies about Tuzla that would be another matter. Anyway, we had sort of 'nice' Hillary at the debate so I bet scary, outraged, demented Hillary is just about ready to show up in Penn.

Let's hope that the Huff Post crowd isn't about to adopt the Fox/ABC style of journalism. More sensationalistic headlines without substance.

[SLone08]

Why no mention of Bill getting paid 800K for working with the Columbian Government, lobbying for CAFTA?

[Roshi98]

Because that has NOTHING to do with Hillary's position on NAFTA, and the fact that she's opposed CAFTA almost since its conception.

[sillyseason]

Roshi98 wrote: "Because that has NOTHING to do with Hillary's position on NAFTA, and the fact that she's opposed CAFTA almost since its conception."

I beg to differ with you, Roshi98. If the Clintons filed a joint tax return (which they did), Bill's $800,000 for his pro Colombian Trade agreement does have something to do with Hillary's position on foreign trade.

[JavaCityGal]

Good job -- PA voters deserve to know the truth. They lost 45,000 jobs and Hillary's hubby and top strategist are STILL doing free-trade deals with Columbia behind their backs. Voters have a right to know.

[EspritDeVoltaire]

Great mail piece on the NAFTA Queen. Pennsylvanians would never have listened to her with a straight face if they had realized the truth on Senator Clinton's actual positions on trade.

Even though her poll numbers have fallen from double digits, she still has a slight lead and if she wins by 1% will declare a mandate in true Bush style. Hillary "Republican Policy" Clinton, what a disgrace to the Democratic Party. We should have washed our hands of both of them after Bill was disbarred.

[rnmina]

After last nights' ABC's version of Star Magazine, Barack should at least inform the good people of Pennsylvania about Clinton's lies about Nafta. I remember her supporting Nafta; it was her husband's plan--though she will lie now and say she didn't support it. She will say and do just about anything to win votes. I am glad I got this chance to see the real HIlary Clinton in action because I had separated her from Bill as a person of integrity and honor. If the contest had gone as it was supposed to, with no challenge from Barack, I would have never known the true nature of her character.

[AmHope]

Tread very carefully, here OB. It's only a couple of days before the PA primary and we don't want anything negative to railroad your upset win in PA.